No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Interesting point from the prosecutor of the Dartford crossing just stop oil lads, referencing legal tests arrived at from previous cases.
There is some good Maugham bashing in there too if that is your bag.
But the Crown felt that the judge’s reasoning had gone awry, so appealed the acquittal. And in the course of agreeing with that complaint, the High Court introduced an idea that has complicated things ever since. When judges have to determine whether a law is compatible with the European Convention, they have to perform a “proportionality assessment”, and the High Court said that, in protest cases, a proportionality assessment could simply replace the question of reasonableness. The trouble is, proportionality assessments are very, very complex.
The case then went to the Supreme Court, which condoned the use of proportionality assessments. They also suggested — somewhat offhand and in passing, it seems to me — that this task could be carried out not only by magistrates but also by a jury. Even the most die-hard of activist lawyers see that move as, well, innovative. And many of the rest find it completely bananas. Juries cannot sensibly be asked to perform legal analyses that High Court judges might take days to decide. The result is that it has become very difficult for those attending a protest to gauge their level of exposure to criminal liability.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
His boss decided he had to. As the best outcome for protecting the boss’s reputation.
That’s the bottom line isn’t it?
So you can understand the Lib Dem’s, labour and Gaurdian (sic) wanting to continue making a fuss of it. But the fuss from Tories in defiance of Sunak’s decision makes absolutely no sense at all.
And to be fair to Sunak, it was Raab promised publicly to resign if found guilty on any charge, so Raab had no wriggle room if Sunak chose to use that promise. And he did, clearly there in the letter, praising Raab for making that honourable promise.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Of course it is possible, but you know this is a smokescreen created by Raab to shroud his wrongdoing. "I had to shout, swear and intimidate Civil Servants because they were incompetent ". No, Raab could have gone through the correct disciplinary channels were his concerns based on fact.
Anyway, who was there to shout, swear and intimidate Raab as he sat by the pool refusing to take phonecalls whilst Kabul fell?
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
I spent 4 years in the civil service at the start of my career, working in a team in policy development, connected to a technical area that I have a specialism in. A lot of the time was spent stopping things we knew were very stupid from happening, both coming from our own Ministers and in other parts of government. When a bad idea was unavoidable we would try and limit the damage. There are lots of people in the civil service that see themselves as being in a similar position.
What would happen though is every so often a generalist would come in to 'deliver' a project and we would be moved out the way. They would get a lot of credit for 'doing the work' and would often be on a path to fast promotion but I always thought that objectively their contribution was pretty limited - they were able to do things quickly partly out of ignorance - they never understood the policy area to the degree that we did.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
I think people moan about Whitehall often enough on here that it is an accepted truth that civil servants can be incompetent. Since we can't know in this case if they were or not, lacking the detail, there's not much gained wondering.
I spent 4 years in the civil service at the start of my career, working in a team in policy development, connected to a technical area that I have a specialism in. A lot of the time was spent stopping things we knew were very stupid from happening, both coming from our own Ministers and in other parts of government. When a bad idea was unavoidable we would try and limit the damage. There are lots of people in the civil service that see themselves as being in a similar position.
What would happen though is every so often a generalist would come in to 'deliver' a project and we would be moved out the way. They would get a lot of credit for 'doing the work' and would often be on a path to fast promotion but I always thought that objectively their contribution was pretty limited - they were able to do things quickly partly out of ignorance - they never understood the policy area to the degree that we did.
Someone with an overarching vision and view of the bigger picture can be a good thing to not get caught up in possibilities and minutiae that those ingrained in the area might stress over too much. It's why we have politicians.
But for those involved you still need to learn enough about the actual area to be effective. Too many think waltzing in with some buzzwords and an attitude brooking no delay is all you need, that since delay and deferred decision making is often a problem all they need to do is pick something and go with it, without ever really understanding it.
Thanks to @edmundintokyo for recommending The Diplomat, someone semi-respectable on Twitter said it was rubbish but I’m glad I ignored them. Good cast and writing, and charmed that the US embassy appears to have a Pee-Wee Herman person as a mid level operative.
A line for the ages re a sub par UK pm getting bellicose: ‘He was a punchline and now he‘s Winston fucking Churchill.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
You clearly have your agenda which corresponds to that of Raab. Fair enough, but do you really want all Whitehall departments manned by clones of Dominic Cummings, Lee Cain, and a cabal of teenage, carefully selected by Johnson SPADS?
I spent 4 years in the civil service at the start of my career, working in a team in policy development, connected to a technical area that I have a specialism in. A lot of the time was spent stopping things we knew were very stupid from happening, both coming from our own Ministers and in other parts of government. When a bad idea was unavoidable we would try and limit the damage. There are lots of people in the civil service that see themselves as being in a similar position.
What would happen though is every so often a generalist would come in to 'deliver' a project and we would be moved out the way. They would get a lot of credit for 'doing the work' and would often be on a path to fast promotion but I always thought that objectively their contribution was pretty limited - they were able to do things quickly partly out of ignorance - they never understood the policy area to the degree that we did.
As an outsider, your summary makes you and your colleagues sound narrow-minded, unimaginative, and frankly fairly useless. Ministers' ideas may be impractical, but the objectives that they are trying to acheive arise from their democratic mandate, which is derived from the people who you were being paid to serve. A more constructive approach might have been to say 'How can we best achieve the effect desired?', rather than 'How can we stop this stupid thing?'.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Of course it is possible, but you know this is a smokescreen created by Raab to shroud his wrongdoing. "I had to shout, swear and intimidate Civil Servants because they were incompetent ". No, Raab could have gone through the correct disciplinary channels were his concerns based on fact.
Anyway, who was there to shout, swear and intimidate Raab as he sat by the pool refusing to take phonecalls whilst Kabul fell?
Sure Raab is trying to protect himself by blaming others - which is what you'd expect an incompetent bully to do.
But that still doesn't mean that the civil servants he dealt with weren't incompetent.
As you mention Afghanistan that's an excellent example - we now know that our Foreign Office 'experts' totally misunderstood what was happening in Afghanistan. They were incompetent but did any of them lose their jobs as a consequence ?
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
I think people moan about Whitehall often enough on here that it is an accepted truth that civil servants can be incompetent. Since we can't know in this case if they were or not, lacking the detail, there's not much gained wondering.
We've just had someone with the merest hint of CS experience patting himself on the back for how obstructive he and his colleagues were of 'stupid ideas we knew wouldn't work'. If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know, nothing will.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
You clearly have your agenda which corresponds to that of Raab. Fair enough, but do you really want all Whitehall departments manned by clones of Dominic Cummings, Lee Cain, and a cabal of teenage, carefully selected by Johnson SPADS?
I have no agenda beyond distrusting all of them.
Which is perhaps too cynical and nihilist.
But why not when for every one who gets disgraced I'll bet a dozen get away with it.
Now I'd like to believe that the higher echelons of the civil service are filled with people of ability and integrity but given the roles Reynolds and Case played in the Downing Street parties or how many got involved with a shyster like Lex Greensill my trust has gone.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
I think people moan about Whitehall often enough on here that it is an accepted truth that civil servants can be incompetent. Since we can't know in this case if they were or not, lacking the detail, there's not much gained wondering.
We've just had someone with the merest hint of CS experience patting himself on the back for how obstructive he and his colleagues were of 'stupid ideas we knew wouldn't work'. If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know, nothing will.
The devil is in the details I expect.
Not everything can be run back past a minister after they decide something, there simply wouldn't be time, but there might be developments which indicate it would be a disaster, down at a lower level beyond the kind of thing a minister could anticipate. Do they just proceed regardless because that was the instruction and the policy or does an operational decision get made to adjust or pause to prevent disaster, which then gets reported to the minister, who then rails against civil service obstruction to their grand plans?
Depending on the circumstances the civil servants or the minister could be right.
Civil servants need politicians to provide them with ideas, or to pick an idea or direction. They may even need someone to use political authority to get things moving, particularly in a departmental conflict, or speak some tough truths. Politicians need civil servants to advise them what can be done or what it will take to get something done, and to manage the fine details which simply cannot be micromanaged by the politician. Neither benefits from a breakdown of the relationship to one of idiots to be curtailed or enemies to be overcome.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
You clearly have your agenda which corresponds to that of Raab. Fair enough, but do you really want all Whitehall departments manned by clones of Dominic Cummings, Lee Cain, and a cabal of teenage, carefully selected by Johnson SPADS?
God forbid anyone on here having an agenda. No way would you do that. No siree
Seems significant. What I think is happening is the Chinese Foreign Affairs establishment is split between realists and ideologues - the "wolf warriors" like the ambassador to France. In which case this is the ideologues asserting themselves. A prominent wolf warrior Zhao Lijian was demoted from his position as MFA spokesman at the end of last year. The key question is which faction is favoured by Xi Jinping. I suspect more the ideologues.
By the way the realists aren't in any sense doves but they do believe in building alliances and a degree of subtlety.
It's embarrassing for Macron that the Ambassador to France felt emboldened enough to talk like that immediately after Macron's visit to China.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
I think people moan about Whitehall often enough on here that it is an accepted truth that civil servants can be incompetent. Since we can't know in this case if they were or not, lacking the detail, there's not much gained wondering.
We've just had someone with the merest hint of CS experience patting himself on the back for how obstructive he and his colleagues were of 'stupid ideas we knew wouldn't work'. If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know, nothing will.
Your comments make it sound like you have never worked in an environment where you have to deal with stupid ideas. A lot of ideas in government are stupid - politicians know it as well as civil servants. Once they have been agreed though, you have to implement them - that is part of your job, and if you don't like it, then you need to leave. But there is certainly no requirement that you believe in every idea that is put to you.
This is a completely different thing to what is going on with Dominic Raab. His complaint as far as I understand it is that civil servants were trying to actively sabotage government policies because they have a moral objection to them.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
A reckoning must come for them. The Tories are about to spend a term or two in Opposition. Raab, Gove and the like should spend the time thinking how to break the power of the Humphreys. First thing up should be the ability to fire people on a similar basis to the private sector. Second thing up should be project-based staffing, based on performance reviews.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He's keeping his word by resigning if the report found anything against him, even though he disagrees with it. Maybe it's that simple.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
There are plenty in the cabinet that backed Brexit . I don’t see what this has to do with Brexit . This line is being peddled by the right wing papers to turn Raab into some sort of martyr . This scapegoating of the civil service is the latest attempt by the Tories to deflect from their garbage record .
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
There are plenty in the cabinet that backed Brexit . I don’t see what this has to do with Brexit . This line is being peddled by the right wing papers to turn Raab into some sort of martyr . This scapegoating of the civil service is the latest attempt by the Tories to deflect from their garbage record .
It’s been going on since 2016. The judiciary, the BBC, the civil service etc.
Only the incredibly cretinous can’t see through it. Sadly, half the population are officially below average IQ.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
There are plenty in the cabinet that backed Brexit . I don’t see what this has to do with Brexit . This line is being peddled by the right wing papers to turn Raab into some sort of martyr . This scapegoating of the civil service is the latest attempt by the Tories to deflect from their garbage record .
It’s been going on since 2016. The judiciary, the BBC, the civil service etc...
Is there a word for this? I assume it would be something like "populist disdain for existing structures" although I'm sure there's a better term.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
There are plenty in the cabinet that backed Brexit . I don’t see what this has to do with Brexit . This line is being peddled by the right wing papers to turn Raab into some sort of martyr . This scapegoating of the civil service is the latest attempt by the Tories to deflect from their garbage record .
What sort of ridiculous logic is this? It's like saying the existence of a woman not affected by sexism is evidence that a different woman can't have been affected by sexism.
The damning evidence of what a hit piece this was is in the very report. How can you be bullying without targeting anyone? The most damning incidents of the so-called bullying was Raab calling work "utterly useless". These are people at high levels of policy making that have years of career experience. We are expected to swallow they are snowflakes of the highest order.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
There are plenty in the cabinet that backed Brexit . I don’t see what this has to do with Brexit . This line is being peddled by the right wing papers to turn Raab into some sort of martyr . This scapegoating of the civil service is the latest attempt by the Tories to deflect from their garbage record .
It’s been going on since 2016. The judiciary, the BBC, the civil service etc...
Is there a word for this? I assume it would be something like "populist disdain for existing structures" although I'm sure there's a better term.
The fact that you lot have to talk in generalities about this is because the specific evidence against Raab is so weak. Despite a long report after a thorough investigation, there's nothing there. And you all know it.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
Nope. Yours is completely the wrong take on what happened here. It was Rishi Sunak’s decision to throw Raab under the bus, being the best option for Rishi Sunak, compared to Rishi letting Raab the now controversial bully stay on, and the heat thus transferred to Rishi Sunak and his decision making.
Or so Rishi thought at the time. as often in politics, the next chapters can go in unexpected directions.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
Nope. Yours is completely the wrong take on what happened here. It was Rishi Sunak’s decision to throw Raab under the bus, being the best option for Rishi Sunak, compared to Rishi letting Raab the now controversial bully stay on, and the heat thus transferred to Rishi Sunak and his decision making.
Or so Rishi thought at the time. as often in politics, the next chapters can go in unexpected directions.
Again, generality drivel to attempt to create a narrative without any specific facts behind it. Raab said he would resign if a situation happened, so he did resign when it happened. Nothing to do with Sunak. It's called principle.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
Nope. Yours is completely the wrong take on what happened here. It was Rishi Sunak’s decision to throw Raab under the bus, being the best option for Rishi Sunak, compared to Rishi letting Raab the now controversial bully stay on, and the heat thus transferred to Rishi Sunak and his decision making.
Or so Rishi thought at the time. as often in politics, the next chapters can go in unexpected directions.
Again, generality drivel to attempt to create a narrative without any specific facts behind it. Raab said he would resign if a situation happened, so he did resign when it happened. Nothing to do with Sunak. It's called principle.
Ha. 😆 If Raab hadn’t said that, Rishi would still have thrown Raab under the bus to spare himself. The fact Raab said it merely made it so easy for Sunak to do the Pontius Pilate hand washing thing.
The specific facts you need are exactly what you get in these situations, coming up to tight elections, is government and Downing Street trying to distance itself from anything controversial. Where proper government is less about giving voters what they want, and in fact much closer to forcing voters to swallow what they need, this is becoming a period of non government, preoccupied on focus groups and polls, avoiding anything controversial, trying to shape front pages and narratives in the best possible way, until the next election is out of the way.
Sunak’s abandonment of Raab has to be seen as being in this period, in this context.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
Nope. Yours is completely the wrong take on what happened here. It was Rishi Sunak’s decision to throw Raab under the bus, being the best option for Rishi Sunak, compared to Rishi letting Raab the now controversial bully stay on, and the heat thus transferred to Rishi Sunak and his decision making.
Or so Rishi thought at the time. as often in politics, the next chapters can go in unexpected directions.
Again, generality drivel to attempt to create a narrative without any specific facts behind it. Raab said he would resign if a situation happened, so he did resign when it happened. Nothing to do with Sunak. It's called principle.
Ha. 😆 If Raab hadn’t said that, Rishi would still have thrown Raab under the bus to spare himself. The fact Raab said it merely made it so easy for Sunak to do the Pontius Pilate hand washing thing.
The specific facts you need are exactly what you get in these situations, coming up to tight elections, is government and Downing Street trying to distance itself from anything controversial. Where proper government is less about giving voters what they want, and in fact much closer to forcing voters to swallow what they need, this is becoming a period of non government, preoccupied on focus groups and polls, avoiding anything controversial, trying to shape front pages and narratives in the best possible way, until the next election is out of the way.
Sunak’s abandonment of Raab has to be seen as being in this period, in this context.
Again, another narrative bullshit comment free from any specific facts. That your example of "specific facts" isn't a specific fact just shows you don't have basic understanding of the English language.
Presumably, this sort of weak, fact-free thinking is the exact sort of dross is what Raab had no patience for in the Civil Service.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
Nope. Yours is completely the wrong take on what happened here. It was Rishi Sunak’s decision to throw Raab under the bus, being the best option for Rishi Sunak, compared to Rishi letting Raab the now controversial bully stay on, and the heat thus transferred to Rishi Sunak and his decision making.
Or so Rishi thought at the time. as often in politics, the next chapters can go in unexpected directions.
Again, generality drivel to attempt to create a narrative without any specific facts behind it. Raab said he would resign if a situation happened, so he did resign when it happened. Nothing to do with Sunak. It's called principle.
Ha. 😆 If Raab hadn’t said that, Rishi would still have thrown Raab under the bus to spare himself. The fact Raab said it merely made it so easy for Sunak to do the Pontius Pilate hand washing thing.
The specific facts you need are exactly what you get in these situations, coming up to tight elections, is government and Downing Street trying to distance itself from anything controversial. Where proper government is less about giving voters what they want, and in fact much closer to forcing voters to swallow what they need, this is becoming a period of non government, preoccupied on focus groups and polls, avoiding anything controversial, trying to shape front pages and narratives in the best possible way, until the next election is out of the way.
Sunak’s abandonment of Raab has to be seen as being in this period, in this context.
Again, another narrative bullshit comment free from any specific facts. That your example of "specific facts" isn't a specific fact just shows you don't have basic understanding of the English language.
Presumably, this sort of weak, fact-free thinking is the exact sort of dross is what Raab had no patience for in the Civil Service.
I don’t think the CivilService will hire me! I didn’t go to school and have no qualifications!
Sunak was absolutely right to do it. The Johnson way of standing by Raab and toughing it out, would have taken 4 points off the opinion polls in a week.
What do you think Lib Dem’s and Labour wanted Sunak to do - what they were publicly demanding he had to do, or the very opposite?
This is how politics works I’m sure. I stand by every word of my narrative in these posts on this subject.
I'm disappointed that we never got the thrill of the chase with Raab. Normally, he would have had the vote of confidence from Sunak followed by Jenricko and Shappsie (other pieces of tory shit are available) on Sky News defending him with fragile confidence followed by two days of silence followed by the sacking. We were denied all of that.
No he isn't. Hodges has just swallowed Raab's BS narrative, hook line and sinker. Raab has been caught out and he has carefully crafted a scapegoat for his BS defence.
Do the crime, serve the time! No Dom, the dog did not eat your homework.
Its possible that Raab is a bully and that the civil servants were useless wimps.
Anything is possible, but don't you think Raab's catalogue of incompetence makes him a poor judge of anyone else's work performance?
This is such bullshine. You have to hand it to CCHQ, they are driving the narrative, even if it is the wrong way down a one way street.
Alternatively someone who is incompetent might get angrier with receiving crap than the competent do.
The competent often world-wearingly correct the crap they receive and get on with things whereas the incompetent don't have that ability and so get angry instead.
I am sorry, this is such cobblers. The evidence from the report would appear to have Raab banged to rights with no criticism of the performance of Civil Servants. Raab has defiantly defended his wrongdoing by claiming he has been the victim of a conspiracy, and the PB faithful are defying the evidence and agreeing with him. Unbelievable!
We know that there's plenty of incompetent civil servants in Whitehall.
Now were the civil servants that Raab dealt with incompetent ?
I don't know and nor do you.
But its certainly a possibility.
Why did he resign?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
F1: still no update on the official website, regarding the double qualifying/race situation. They need to get that sorted soon, less than a week until the Azerbaijan Grand Prix.
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
The problem with that narrative is that it requires every single civil servant Raab ever met to be incompetent and disruptive.
How is it possible that he, and only he, found all of them at every department he was posted to?
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
The problem with that narrative is that it requires every single civil servant Raab ever met to be incompetent and disruptive.
How is it possible that he, and only he, found all of them at every department he was posted to?
I don’t think the report said that. In fact, if I read it correctly it found two ways he was unpleasant to a handful of staff, and on one occasion he frankly seems to have been entirely justified. Rather a lot of the complaints were dismissed on the grounds they were raised as hearsay.
And in any case, a lot of civil servants are completely incompetent. If he were at the DfE or Transport, for example, he’d have been hard pressed to find any that weren’t.
It’s forecast to rain all day today and tomorrow, with thunderstorm warnings for today
I don’t think I’ll see the sun until Tuesday!
Just had a nasty coffee on the ferry. I’m going to find a nice one in Saint-Malo, see the cathedral, buy some beer or cider, then head off to Dol-de-Bretagne where Cornish Saint Samson died
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
The problem with this Deep State conspiracy theory is… why Raab? If the motive is hatred of Brexit, well, I don’t recall Raab being a key part of the Leave campaign. He was Brexit secretary, but for much less time than Davis or Barclay, and May led on the role when Raab was in post.
If I was part of a Deep State conspiracy targeting Brexiteers, I’d be going after Barclay, Baker, Frost, Leadsom or Johnson. Raab fans seem to have an overinflated view of Raab’s significance if they think the Civil Service barons directed all their supposed Brexit ire on him.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
You mean they are not like Sir Humprey Appleby... you surprise me.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
You mean they are not like Sir Humprey Appleby... you surprise me.
Even 40 years ago that was fiction. It is rather like forming your opinion of the medical profession by studying Sir Launcelot Spratt.
My brother recently retired from the Civil Service in Whitehall and had a long and successful career working with politicians of both Tory and Labour governments. His only real conflict of recent times was with a junior Minister of the current government. The Minister wanted to bung a lucrative contract to a friend without tender, and my brother ensured that it did go out to open tender.
The two Ministers he most respected were John Major and Jeremy Hunt, both of whom actually listened to the advice given and were kind to their staff. John Major would often lunch in the canteen with the Junior office staff and Secretaries, a genuine and modest bloke.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
You mean they are not like Sir Humprey Appleby... you surprise me.
Off topic - @squareroot2 fyi Parliament is carrying out an inquiry into DB pension schemes. A number of people from the group I set up are submitting evidence. Bearing in mind you get your pension from FAS, administered by the PPF, you might want to consider submitting evidence yourself.
It’s forecast to rain all day today and tomorrow, with thunderstorm warnings for today
I don’t think I’ll see the sun until Tuesday!
Just had a nasty coffee on the ferry. I’m going to find a nice one in Saint-Malo, see the cathedral, buy some beer or cider, then head off to Dol-de-Bretagne where Cornish Saint Samson died
I assume you are going inside the walled part of St Malo. It is very nice.
My brother recently retired from the Civil Service in Whitehall and had a long and successful career working with politicians of both Tory and Labour governments. His only real conflict of recent times was with a junior Minister of the current government. The Minister wanted to bung a lucrative contract to a friend without tender, and my brother ensured that it did go out to open tender.
My day spent his entire career in the Foreign Office and met (and on occasion worked with) every Foreign Secretary from Douglas-Home to Cook. I don't remember him slagging any of them off but then again he was dealing with a completely different caliber of individual back then not the likes of Raab, Truss and Stupidly. The ones I can recall him making favourable comments about were Crosland and Pym (who definitely did not share my dad's politics).
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
He has achievements?
Does this sort of thing count?
Dominic Raab needlessly delayed a decision on evacuations from Afghanistan as he complained about the formatting of an email, the whistleblower claims.
A couple of other things to remember about St Dominic the Martyr:
First, if his resignation was really because he was so incredibly honourable, we didn't need the dance of Thursday/Friday. He could have gone the moment he read the report. Conclusion: he didn't want to be honourable.
Second, Raab claimed to not have been told of the effects of his behaviour, when the evidence is that he was;
Why the United States keeps getting richer – with Britain lagging ever further behind
Britons will soon be “richer than Americans” read a BBC headline in January 2008.
Forecasters were predicting that for the first time in more than a century, GDP per head in the UK would surpass that of the US. ...[snip]... Yet by 2021, GDP per head across the pond had increased by 15pc, while Britons were only 3pc better off than in 2008. ...[snip]... While the US economy was 5pc larger in the final three months of last year than before Covid, the UK remained 0.6pc poorer. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/23/us-richer-than-uk-finance-inflation-taxes/ (£££)
The Telegraph does not quite say Britain's growth under Labour was snuffed out by Conservative governments but it does point to high tax rates under the blue team, contrasted with low tax rates and state intervention in America.
Another big payout by SNP coming up, yet another pompous twat overeached and made a real mess. Got the wrong guy and included his employer in it as well.
Why the United States keeps getting richer – with Britain lagging ever further behind
Britons will soon be “richer than Americans” read a BBC headline in January 2008.
Forecasters were predicting that for the first time in more than a century, GDP per head in the UK would surpass that of the US. ...[snip]... Yet by 2021, GDP per head across the pond had increased by 15pc, while Britons were only 3pc better off than in 2008. ...[snip]... While the US economy was 5pc larger in the final three months of last year than before Covid, the UK remained 0.6pc poorer. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/23/us-richer-than-uk-finance-inflation-taxes/ (£££)
The Telegraph does not quite say Britain's growth under Labour was snuffed out by Conservative governments but it does point to high tax rates under the blue team, contrasted with low tax rates and state intervention in America.
Because of the paywall I cannot see the article but I am pretty sure the post Covid number is no longer negative after the revisals of GDP last week. @MaxPB pointed this out at the time.
More fundamentally, our economic growth during the Brown years was driven by financial services more than anything else. When the GFC showed that a lot of that money and profits were illusory at best our growth suffered disproportionately to every other mature economy. The advantage that the US and several others have over us is that they didn't stop investing in making stuff. We should try it.
Why the United States keeps getting richer – with Britain lagging ever further behind
Britons will soon be “richer than Americans” read a BBC headline in January 2008.
Forecasters were predicting that for the first time in more than a century, GDP per head in the UK would surpass that of the US. ...[snip]... Yet by 2021, GDP per head across the pond had increased by 15pc, while Britons were only 3pc better off than in 2008. ...[snip]... While the US economy was 5pc larger in the final three months of last year than before Covid, the UK remained 0.6pc poorer. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/23/us-richer-than-uk-finance-inflation-taxes/ (£££)
The Telegraph does not quite say Britain's growth under Labour was snuffed out by Conservative governments but it does point to high tax rates under the blue team, contrasted with low tax rates and state intervention in America.
Yes, Democrat America is following Conservative economic policies, while Conservative Britain (and much of Europe) is following Labour ones. With predictable results.
Thanks to @edmundintokyo for recommending The Diplomat, someone semi-respectable on Twitter said it was rubbish but I’m glad I ignored them. Good cast and writing, and charmed that the US embassy appears to have a Pee-Wee Herman person as a mid level operative.
A line for the ages re a sub par UK pm getting bellicose: ‘He was a punchline and now he‘s Winston fucking Churchill.
It is, of course very silly, as is some of the plotting, even within the context of its own fictional universe. But it is still very well done and most enjoyable.
Why the United States keeps getting richer – with Britain lagging ever further behind
Britons will soon be “richer than Americans” read a BBC headline in January 2008.
Forecasters were predicting that for the first time in more than a century, GDP per head in the UK would surpass that of the US. ...[snip]... Yet by 2021, GDP per head across the pond had increased by 15pc, while Britons were only 3pc better off than in 2008. ...[snip]... While the US economy was 5pc larger in the final three months of last year than before Covid, the UK remained 0.6pc poorer. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/23/us-richer-than-uk-finance-inflation-taxes/ (£££)
The Telegraph does not quite say Britain's growth under Labour was snuffed out by Conservative governments but it does point to high tax rates under the blue team, contrasted with low tax rates and state intervention in America.
Yes, Democrat America is following Conservative economic policies, while Conservative Britain (and much of Europe) is following Labour ones. With predictable results.
(Also worth noting that Red America kept much more of its economy open during the pandemic, that its population is growing faster than ours, and that its government debt:GDP ratio is about 140% compared with ours at 100%).
1) We were sold the story of Gordon Brown++ level throwing things and actually physical violence. 2) The reality was desk thumping and calling out people in front of others (pubic humiliation). Also threatening people with the sack. This is considered bullying in business. 3) from 2) he was toast. 4) the sacking/resignation followed the old style pattern of “time to consider your position” 5) this sunrises people because it is a while since this pattern hasn't been used in a while 6) Raab hasn’t accepted 2) 7) this comes back to something I have commented on in the past - no training or career development for politicians. So you get people who have no idea how to manage running departments 8) Conspiracy? It’s back to definitions. There was undoubtedly an upwelling of complaints. A movement if you like. But this was created by his behaviour. 9) Civil Service obstructionism. This is a thing. Read the memoirs of ministers from all sides going back as far as you like. Yes Minister was based on truth - exaggerated, but truth.
This takes the form of opposing “bad policies”. The problem is what is a bad policy. For example, a senior civil servant of my acquaintance told me, proudly that he had blocked incompetent process in an entire department for some years. The process - Agile Project Management. By imposing waterfall, he had probably doomed most of the IT projects in his department.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
You mean they are not like Sir Humprey Appleby... you surprise me.
Off topic - @squareroot2 fyi Parliament is carrying out an inquiry into DB pension schemes. A number of people from the group I set up are submitting evidence. Bearing in mind you get your pension from FAS, administered by the PPF, you might want to consider submitting evidence yourself.
How does one do so please Surely Govt knows it all ,the ludicrous pension holidays and so on and so forth.....
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
He has achievements?
Does this sort of thing count?
Dominic Raab needlessly delayed a decision on evacuations from Afghanistan as he complained about the formatting of an email, the whistleblower claims.
A couple of other things to remember about St Dominic the Martyr:
First, if his resignation was really because he was so incredibly honourable, we didn't need the dance of Thursday/Friday. He could have gone the moment he read the report. Conclusion: he didn't want to be honourable.
Second, Raab claimed to not have been told of the effects of his behaviour, when the evidence is that he was;
The thing with the 'Kabul airlift/email formatting' controversy is that it is quite easy to understand how difficult it would have been for Raab to make those decisions. If civil servants want ministerial agreement to make a decision like that then Ministers would obviously need sufficient information to make the decision. Within the many thousands of people airlifted out of Kabul there will be some bad apples. Someones got to weigh up the risks and sign it off. Equally if there is no decision due to procrastination then there will be adverse political consequences of that. It just sounds like business as usual and the leaking of this by a 'whistleblowing civil servant' rather supports Raab's complaint that he is being sabotaged by the civil service.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
He has achievements?
Does this sort of thing count?
Dominic Raab needlessly delayed a decision on evacuations from Afghanistan as he complained about the formatting of an email, the whistleblower claims.
A couple of other things to remember about St Dominic the Martyr:
First, if his resignation was really because he was so incredibly honourable, we didn't need the dance of Thursday/Friday. He could have gone the moment he read the report. Conclusion: he didn't want to be honourable.
Second, Raab claimed to not have been told of the effects of his behaviour, when the evidence is that he was;
Because after all, if ministers were judged on their achievements in office, which one of the current cabinet would have a job?
Possibly Sunak, Hunt (arguable) and then I'm starting to struggle. Braverman has failed at everything she's done. Cleverly is meh. Barclay is being walloped by the NHS. Gove isn't without impacts to his name but his most significant impact was in education and his reforms are unfolding as more and more disastrous pretty much by the month.
I didn't like Brown and his management style makes Raab look like a choirboy, but you could point to actual things he had done that in the short term at least led to improvements. With this lot, that's really hard work.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
He has achievements?
Does this sort of thing count?
Dominic Raab needlessly delayed a decision on evacuations from Afghanistan as he complained about the formatting of an email, the whistleblower claims.
A couple of other things to remember about St Dominic the Martyr:
First, if his resignation was really because he was so incredibly honourable, we didn't need the dance of Thursday/Friday. He could have gone the moment he read the report. Conclusion: he didn't want to be honourable.
Second, Raab claimed to not have been told of the effects of his behaviour, when the evidence is that he was;
Because after all, if ministers were judged on their achievements in office, which one of the current cabinet would have a job?
Possibly Sunak, Hunt (arguable) and then I'm starting to struggle. Braverman has failed at everything she's done. Cleverly is meh. Barclay is being walloped by the NHS. Gove isn't without impacts to his name but his most significant impact was in education and his reforms are unfolding as more and more disastrous pretty much by the month.
I didn't like Brown and his management style makes Raab look like a choirboy, but you could point to actual things he had done that in the short term at least led to improvements. With this lot, that's really hard work.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
He has achievements?
Does this sort of thing count?
Dominic Raab needlessly delayed a decision on evacuations from Afghanistan as he complained about the formatting of an email, the whistleblower claims.
A couple of other things to remember about St Dominic the Martyr:
First, if his resignation was really because he was so incredibly honourable, we didn't need the dance of Thursday/Friday. He could have gone the moment he read the report. Conclusion: he didn't want to be honourable.
Second, Raab claimed to not have been told of the effects of his behaviour, when the evidence is that he was;
Because after all, if ministers were judged on their achievements in office, which one of the current cabinet would have a job?
Possibly Sunak, Hunt (arguable) and then I'm starting to struggle. Braverman has failed at everything she's done. Cleverly is meh. Barclay is being walloped by the NHS. Gove isn't without impacts to his name but his most significant impact was in education and his reforms are unfolding as more and more disastrous pretty much by the month.
I didn't like Brown and his management style makes Raab look like a choirboy, but you could point to actual things he had done that in the short term at least led to improvements. With this lot, that's really hard work.
Yorkshire might be foxed by the weather......
That would be quite funny, although they only really need about 10 overs.
When the report itself said that Raab had not targeted anyone, it is ludicrous that he can be guilty of "bullying".
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
If that's what it was, a stitch up, Rishi would have insisted Raab stay on. Why wouldn't he? There's clearly defenders to be found in media and the party, the findings are not as extreme as many cases so easier to sell to the public, and Raab was an early backer whom he has reason to show some gratitude towards.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
He couldn't because that's what a stitch-up is. The Civil Service manipulated things to make it politically impossible for him to do so. They hated Raab for backing Brexit and manouvered things to force him to resign. It was an entirely political manouver as the civil service barons have ideas above their station.
Paranoid bollocks. Read the report - by an employment expert commissioned by the PM, not the civil service. Tolley bent over backwards to be fair to Raab, and it's nonetheless pretty evident what he made of his behaviour.
Another big payout by SNP coming up, yet another pompous twat overeached and made a real mess. Got the wrong guy and included his employer in it as well.
The Wings article about this today is excellent. I may not agree with his politics but Campbell is a serious journalist who puts most of the MSM to shame. His piece about when he "accidently" gave the wrong name for the police investigation and it was copied into almost every newspaper uncritically shows the influence he is having.
My brother recently retired from the Civil Service in Whitehall and had a long and successful career working with politicians of both Tory and Labour governments. His only real conflict of recent times was with a junior Minister of the current government. The Minister wanted to bung a lucrative contract to a friend without tender, and my brother ensured that it did go out to open tender.
My day spent his entire career in the Foreign Office and met (and on occasion worked with) every Foreign Secretary from Douglas-Home to Cook. I don't remember him slagging any of them off but then again he was dealing with a completely different caliber of individual back then not the likes of Raab, Truss and Stupidly. The ones I can recall him making favourable comments about were Crosland and Pym (who definitely did not share my dad's politics).
Most civil servants in my experience will not talk negatively about any politician they worked with, or make any complaints about the working conditions to outsiders. That doesn't mean that there was no conflict or frustration, just that it was viewed as an intrinsic part of the job.
Another big payout by SNP coming up, yet another pompous twat overeached and made a real mess. Got the wrong guy and included his employer in it as well.
This sets the bar for a "disgusting act" very low.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
You mean they are not like Sir Humprey Appleby... you surprise me.
Off topic - @squareroot2 fyi Parliament is carrying out an inquiry into DB pension schemes. A number of people from the group I set up are submitting evidence. Bearing in mind you get your pension from FAS, administered by the PPF, you might want to consider submitting evidence yourself.
How does one do so please Surely Govt knows it all ,the ludicrous pension holidays and so on and so forth.....
Yes you will probably be banging your head against a brick wall, but the campaign I am involved in (which is more specific) has managed to get 2 debates in parliament, 2 bills, NAO report and PAC report in progress, so after 11 years of campaigning I am hopeful of success. However even if successful I will continue supporting the FAS and PPF campaigns for the pre 97 pension contribution scandal you are hit by.
Five years for running Bet365 accounts in other people's names seems a bit stiff.
It is fraud.
I'm just surprised at his naïveté in assuming they would pay out often enough for that to be worth it.
Yes, I can see it is fraud. The article mentions fraud against Santander as well but no mention of monetary gain, so probably just bank accounts for the betting accounts, and acquittal on money laundering charges. The co-defendant sentenced for the Santander fraud got 16 months suspended. So five years looks a bit stiff.
Five years for running Bet365 accounts in other people's names seems a bit stiff.
It is fraud.
I'm just surprised at his naïveté in assuming they would pay out often enough for that to be worth it.
If you look at the problem with jail, it is things like this. People are going to jail, at the cost of £40k per year, for these cottage industry frauds. Similarly things like stamp washing. It is completely the wrong solution.
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
The problem with that narrative is that it requires every single civil servant Raab ever met to be incompetent and disruptive.
How is it possible that he, and only he, found all of them at every department he was posted to?
I don’t think the report said that. In fact, if I read it correctly it found two ways he was unpleasant to a handful of staff, and on one occasion he frankly seems to have been entirely justified. Rather a lot of the complaints were dismissed on the grounds they were raised as hearsay.
On a point of fact, the complaints were not dismissed. They were not investigated, or considered at all for the purposes of the report.
That Raab has similar stories from every department he's been in seems to be common knowledge, but that again is something completely outside of the report's purview, which is why it wasn't mentioned.
Five years for running Bet365 accounts in other people's names seems a bit stiff.
It is fraud.
I'm just surprised at his naïveté in assuming they would pay out often enough for that to be worth it.
Where do you draw the line though? There must be loads of people who have run a betting account in a partner's name for example. What about sending a mate to stick cash on at a betting shop that you are limited to 1 quid at?
Five years for running Bet365 accounts in other people's names seems a bit stiff.
It is fraud.
I'm just surprised at his naïveté in assuming they would pay out often enough for that to be worth it.
Yes, I can see it is fraud. The article mentions fraud against Santander as well but no mention of monetary gain, so probably just bank accounts for the betting accounts, and acquittal on money laundering charges. The co-defendant sentenced for the Santander fraud got 16 months suspended. So five years looks a bit stiff.
Possibly analogous previous convictions? Otherwise, I would agree.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
He has achievements?
Does this sort of thing count?
Dominic Raab needlessly delayed a decision on evacuations from Afghanistan as he complained about the formatting of an email, the whistleblower claims.
A couple of other things to remember about St Dominic the Martyr:
First, if his resignation was really because he was so incredibly honourable, we didn't need the dance of Thursday/Friday. He could have gone the moment he read the report. Conclusion: he didn't want to be honourable.
Second, Raab claimed to not have been told of the effects of his behaviour, when the evidence is that he was;
Because after all, if ministers were judged on their achievements in office, which one of the current cabinet would have a job?
Possibly Sunak, Hunt (arguable) and then I'm starting to struggle. Braverman has failed at everything she's done. Cleverly is meh. Barclay is being walloped by the NHS. Gove isn't without impacts to his name but his most significant impact was in education and his reforms are unfolding as more and more disastrous pretty much by the month.
I didn't like Brown and his management style makes Raab look like a choirboy, but you could point to actual things he had done that in the short term at least led to improvements. With this lot, that's really hard work.
Yorkshire might be foxed by the weather......
That would be quite funny, although they only really need about 10 overs.
Thanks to @edmundintokyo for recommending The Diplomat, someone semi-respectable on Twitter said it was rubbish but I’m glad I ignored them. Good cast and writing, and charmed that the US embassy appears to have a Pee-Wee Herman person as a mid level operative.
A line for the ages re a sub par UK pm getting bellicose: ‘He was a punchline and now he‘s Winston fucking Churchill.
It is, of course very silly, as is some of the plotting, even within the context of its own fictional universe. But it is still very well done and most enjoyable.
Yes, quite a few credulity stretching moments building up, but v. enjoyable as you say.
Ambassador Wyler is of course a lib fantasy, the looks of a Gabbard/Haley yet with a fierce moral intelligence. Could never happen..
This does not bode well. If this current crop of Tory politicians can only function if they have placemen working for them, then they are really are not very good politicians.
Whatever the merits of the plan, have the advisers considered that they are also handing this power to the current opposition? Quite possibly very soon.
I mean, there's optimism that the government's ratings will come good, and then there's simple denial of the situation.
The big tent is being slowly erected, it’s just the image of the police tent pitched on Sturgeon’s lawn that remains a hard image to erase. And while the police investigation continues, it will still be the backdrop to whatever this first minister hopes will become the ‘Yousaf years’.
And while the SNP financial scandals continue, to which he can credibly argue he is not linked, the other more real and present threat that Yousaf has to overcome is that he has helped create a back bench of all the talents.
Whatever the merits of the plan, have the advisers considered that they are also handing this power to the current opposition? Quite possibly very soon.
I mean, there's optimism that the government's ratings will come good, and then there's simple denial of the situation.
The one thing that unites the parties, certainly since the New Labour days, is the conviction the Civil Service are against them.
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
The problem with that narrative is that it requires every single civil servant Raab ever met to be incompetent and disruptive.
How is it possible that he, and only he, found all of them at every department he was posted to?
I don’t think the report said that. In fact, if I read it correctly it found two ways he was unpleasant to a handful of staff, and on one occasion he frankly seems to have been entirely justified. Rather a lot of the complaints were dismissed on the grounds they were raised as hearsay.
On a point of fact, the complaints were not dismissed. They were not investigated, or considered at all for the purposes of the report.
That Raab has similar stories from every department he's been in seems to be common knowledge, but that again is something completely outside of the report's purview, which is why it wasn't mentioned.
I would regard that as being in effect 'dismissed,' but I can see how views would differ on it.
On another subject of bullies in government, I see Spielman is going to give an interview on Kuennsberg today to try and justify the current disaster at OFSTED. I don't propose to watch it as it would annoy me to watch her spouting her usual dishonest drivel, but if any public spirited person not so deeply invested in the train crash that is our current education system would like to, her ignorance might be good for a few laughs.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
He has achievements?
Does this sort of thing count?
Dominic Raab needlessly delayed a decision on evacuations from Afghanistan as he complained about the formatting of an email, the whistleblower claims.
A couple of other things to remember about St Dominic the Martyr:
First, if his resignation was really because he was so incredibly honourable, we didn't need the dance of Thursday/Friday. He could have gone the moment he read the report. Conclusion: he didn't want to be honourable.
Second, Raab claimed to not have been told of the effects of his behaviour, when the evidence is that he was;
Because after all, if ministers were judged on their achievements in office, which one of the current cabinet would have a job?
Possibly Sunak, Hunt (arguable) and then I'm starting to struggle. Braverman has failed at everything she's done. Cleverly is meh. Barclay is being walloped by the NHS. Gove isn't without impacts to his name but his most significant impact was in education and his reforms are unfolding as more and more disastrous pretty much by the month.
I didn't like Brown and his management style makes Raab look like a choirboy, but you could point to actual things he had done that in the short term at least led to improvements. With this lot, that's really hard work.
Yorkshire might be foxed by the weather......
That would be quite funny, although they only really need about 10 overs.
Surprising ignorance on here from some as to what the civil service is/does. It is not a shadowy cabal of socialists/remainers/globalists/whatever the current MailExpressTory-approved hated group of the day is.
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
The kind of conservatism I would vote for would be the one where responsibility and accountability were restored to important values ahead of finding the nearest available scapegoat.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
When we look at Raab's list of achievements in government, it is a list notable for its brevity. I have long wondered why he was in cabinet at all, let alone Deputy PM. He isn't much of a loss.
He has achievements?
Does this sort of thing count?
Dominic Raab needlessly delayed a decision on evacuations from Afghanistan as he complained about the formatting of an email, the whistleblower claims.
A couple of other things to remember about St Dominic the Martyr:
First, if his resignation was really because he was so incredibly honourable, we didn't need the dance of Thursday/Friday. He could have gone the moment he read the report. Conclusion: he didn't want to be honourable.
Second, Raab claimed to not have been told of the effects of his behaviour, when the evidence is that he was;
Because after all, if ministers were judged on their achievements in office, which one of the current cabinet would have a job?
Possibly Sunak, Hunt (arguable) and then I'm starting to struggle. Braverman has failed at everything she's done. Cleverly is meh. Barclay is being walloped by the NHS. Gove isn't without impacts to his name but his most significant impact was in education and his reforms are unfolding as more and more disastrous pretty much by the month.
I didn't like Brown and his management style makes Raab look like a choirboy, but you could point to actual things he had done that in the short term at least led to improvements. With this lot, that's really hard work.
Yorkshire might be foxed by the weather......
That would be quite funny, although they only really need about 10 overs.
I see they're still cheating.
????
Shai Hope persistently wandering out of his ground.
Last year they won one match. Both innings Harry Brook was very lucky not to be given out early on, one caught behind, one lbw.
This does not bode well. If this current crop of Tory politicians can only function if they have placemen working for them, then they are really are not very good politicians.
They gave Cummings and Freedman civil service jobs. What more proof do you need?
Whatever the merits of the plan, have the advisers considered that they are also handing this power to the current opposition? Quite possibly very soon.
I mean, there's optimism that the government's ratings will come good, and then there's simple denial of the situation.
That Raab is somewhere between abrasive and a bully, very possibly incompetent and certainly unwise doesn't preclude the civil servants he dealt with being incompetent or for that matter deliberately disruptive themselves.
The problem with that narrative is that it requires every single civil servant Raab ever met to be incompetent and disruptive.
How is it possible that he, and only he, found all of them at every department he was posted to?
I don’t think the report said that. In fact, if I read it correctly it found two ways he was unpleasant to a handful of staff, and on one occasion he frankly seems to have been entirely justified. Rather a lot of the complaints were dismissed on the grounds they were raised as hearsay.
On a point of fact, the complaints were not dismissed. They were not investigated, or considered at all for the purposes of the report.
That Raab has similar stories from every department he's been in seems to be common knowledge, but that again is something completely outside of the report's purview, which is why it wasn't mentioned.
I would regard that as being in effect 'dismissed,' but I can see how views would differ on it.
They were rather treated as not having been made. Point being is that there is no formal procedure for civil servants to raise such complaints. To bring them forward would have required waiving anonymity, which outside of a formal procedure presents obvious risks for a complainant.
If anything productive comes out of the mess, then it would be a better means of resolving such clashes. Such a system could be confidential - and might possibly allow ministers to correct their management deficiencies outside of the public gaze.
Thanks to @edmundintokyo for recommending The Diplomat, someone semi-respectable on Twitter said it was rubbish but I’m glad I ignored them. Good cast and writing, and charmed that the US embassy appears to have a Pee-Wee Herman person as a mid level operative.
A line for the ages re a sub par UK pm getting bellicose: ‘He was a punchline and now he‘s Winston fucking Churchill.
It is, of course very silly, as is some of the plotting, even within the context of its own fictional universe. But it is still very well done and most enjoyable.
I binged 4 episodes last night
It is light, fluffy - and diverting
Tho Winfield House seems to have developed gardens the size of Versailles
Comments
There is some good Maugham bashing in there too if that is your bag.
But the Crown felt that the judge’s reasoning had gone awry, so appealed the acquittal. And in the course of agreeing with that complaint, the High Court introduced an idea that has complicated things ever since. When judges have to determine whether a law is compatible with the European Convention, they have to perform a “proportionality assessment”, and the High Court said that, in protest cases, a proportionality assessment could simply replace the question of reasonableness. The trouble is, proportionality assessments are very, very complex.
The case then went to the Supreme Court, which condoned the use of proportionality assessments. They also suggested — somewhat offhand and in passing, it seems to me — that this task could be carried out not only by magistrates but also by a jury. Even the most die-hard of activist lawyers see that move as, well, innovative. And many of the rest find it completely bananas. Juries cannot sensibly be asked to perform legal analyses that High Court judges might take days to decide. The result is that it has become very difficult for those attending a protest to gauge their level of exposure to criminal liability.
https://unherd.com/2023/04/do-just-stop-oil-deserve-to-be-in-prison/
That’s the bottom line isn’t it?
So you can understand the Lib Dem’s, labour and Gaurdian (sic) wanting to continue making a fuss of it. But the fuss from Tories in defiance of Sunak’s decision makes absolutely no sense at all.
And to be fair to Sunak, it was Raab promised publicly to resign if found guilty on any charge, so Raab had no wriggle room if Sunak chose to use that promise. And he did, clearly there in the letter, praising Raab for making that honourable promise.
Anyway, who was there to shout, swear and intimidate Raab as he sat by the pool refusing to take phonecalls whilst Kabul fell?
Why people seemed determined to deny that possibility is odd given that we know that the higher reaches of the civil service has seen so much incompetence and sleaze and reportedly deliberate opposition to government policies:
Whether you like Brexit, or Dominic Cummings, it ought to worry all of us that at various times senior civil servants briefed the press that they were developing plans to “resist” the former and “run rings round” the latter. Such activities make Whitehall sound like its own political party, viewing itself as an internal opposition.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/greensill-scandal-dragged-civil-service-spotlight-scrutiny-963625
A lot of the time was spent stopping things we knew were very stupid from happening, both coming from our own Ministers and in other parts of government.
When a bad idea was unavoidable we would try and limit the damage. There are lots of people in the civil service that see themselves as being in a similar position.
What would happen though is every so often a generalist would come in to 'deliver' a project and we would be moved out the way.
They would get a lot of credit for 'doing the work' and would often be on a path to fast promotion but I always thought that objectively their contribution was pretty limited - they were able to do things quickly partly out of ignorance - they never understood the policy area to the degree that we did.
But for those involved you still need to learn enough about the actual area to be effective. Too many think waltzing in with some buzzwords and an attitude brooking no delay is all you need, that since delay and deferred decision making is often a problem all they need to do is pick something and go with it, without ever really understanding it.
A line for the ages re a sub par UK pm getting bellicose: ‘He was a punchline and now he‘s Winston fucking Churchill.
But that still doesn't mean that the civil servants he dealt with weren't incompetent.
As you mention Afghanistan that's an excellent example - we now know that our Foreign Office 'experts' totally misunderstood what was happening in Afghanistan. They were incompetent but did any of them lose their jobs as a consequence ?
"Matthew Parris
I’m no fan, but Raab has been hard done by
Labelling the justice secretary a bully is no substitute for finding evidence that any of his actions merited his departure" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5d10c666-e077-11ed-a443-397013625a7c
Which is perhaps too cynical and nihilist.
But why not when for every one who gets disgraced I'll bet a dozen get away with it.
Now I'd like to believe that the higher echelons of the civil service are filled with people of ability and integrity but given the roles Reynolds and Case played in the Downing Street parties or how many got involved with a shyster like Lex Greensill my trust has gone.
Not everything can be run back past a minister after they decide something, there simply wouldn't be time, but there might be developments which indicate it would be a disaster, down at a lower level beyond the kind of thing a minister could anticipate. Do they just proceed regardless because that was the instruction and the policy or does an operational decision get made to adjust or pause to prevent disaster, which then gets reported to the minister, who then rails against civil service obstruction to their grand plans?
Depending on the circumstances the civil servants or the minister could be right.
Civil servants need politicians to provide them with ideas, or to pick an idea or direction. They may even need someone to use political authority to get things moving, particularly in a departmental conflict, or speak some tough truths. Politicians need civil servants to advise them what can be done or what it will take to get something done, and to manage the fine details which simply cannot be micromanaged by the politician. Neither benefits from a breakdown of the relationship to one of idiots to be curtailed or enemies to be overcome.
This is a completely different thing to what is going on with Dominic Raab. His complaint as far as I understand it is that civil servants were trying to actively sabotage government policies because they have a moral objection to them.
The Civil Service has become an incredibly political beast. They are furious that the general public overruled their Europhile project that would permanently cement rule by bureaucracy. And so they have stitched up an extreme conclusion based on the weakest of evidence.
A reckoning must come for them. The Tories are about to spend a term or two in Opposition. Raab, Gove and the like should spend the time thinking how to break the power of the Humphreys. First thing up should be the ability to fire people on a similar basis to the private sector. Second thing up should be project-based staffing, based on performance reviews.
I do not buy that Raab's previous comments that he would resign on the basis of a finding against him tied either his or Rishi's hands - ultimately a stitch up could be resisted.
Just seen a really creepy Tesco advert on YouTube. Seems others are saying the same thing. Who thought this was a good idea?
https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2023/03/tesco-clubcard-advert-creepy/
https://www.marketing-beat.co.uk/2023/03/07/tesco-clubcard-ad-horrifying/
The judiciary, the BBC, the civil service etc.
Only the incredibly cretinous can’t see through it. Sadly, half the population are officially below average IQ.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/65361193
The damning evidence of what a hit piece this was is in the very report. How can you be bullying without targeting anyone? The most damning incidents of the so-called bullying was Raab calling work "utterly useless". These are people at high levels of policy making that have years of career experience. We are expected to swallow they are snowflakes of the highest order.
Or so Rishi thought at the time. as often in politics, the next chapters can go in unexpected directions.
The specific facts you need are exactly what you get in these situations, coming up to tight elections, is government and Downing Street trying to distance itself from anything controversial. Where proper government is less about giving voters what they want, and in fact much closer to forcing voters to swallow what they need, this is becoming a period of non government, preoccupied on focus groups and polls, avoiding anything controversial, trying to shape front pages and narratives in the best possible way, until the next election is out of the way.
Sunak’s abandonment of Raab has to be seen as being in this period, in this context.
Presumably, this sort of weak, fact-free thinking is the exact sort of dross is what Raab had no patience for in the Civil Service.
Sunak was absolutely right to do it. The Johnson way of standing by Raab and toughing it out, would have taken 4 points off the opinion polls in a week.
What do you think Lib Dem’s and Labour wanted Sunak to do - what they were publicly demanding he had to do, or the very opposite?
This is how politics works I’m sure. I stand by every word of my narrative in these posts on this subject.
F1: still no update on the official website, regarding the double qualifying/race situation. They need to get that sorted soon, less than a week until the Azerbaijan Grand Prix.
How is it possible that he, and only he, found all of them at every department he was posted to?
And in any case, a lot of civil servants are completely incompetent. If he were at the DfE or Transport, for example, he’d have been hard pressed to find any that weren’t.
It’s forecast to rain all day today and tomorrow, with thunderstorm warnings for today
I don’t think I’ll see the sun until Tuesday!
Just had a nasty coffee on the ferry. I’m going to find a nice one in Saint-Malo, see the cathedral, buy some beer or cider, then head off to Dol-de-Bretagne where Cornish Saint Samson died
If they were they’d be the shittest cabal ever if all they’d achieved was forcing out a minister whose low quality seems to be pretty much unanimously agreed upon, but have not averted e.g. Spaffer’s worst-in-all-possible-worlds Brexit deal.
Plus, er, ministers get replaced; their selection pretty much entirely at the discretion of the PM. So again, not a particularly clever way for an imaginary cabal to effect the change they seek.
Seriously, engage your brains a little folks.
If I was part of a Deep State conspiracy targeting Brexiteers, I’d be going after Barclay, Baker, Frost, Leadsom or Johnson. Raab fans seem to have an overinflated view of Raab’s significance if they think the Civil Service barons directed all their supposed Brexit ire on him.
Is Raab the worst bully ever? No
Is the bullying worthy of resignation on its own? Arguable
Is the bullying symptomatic of a weak and ineffective manager? Absolutely
Should a weak and ineffective manager maintain their job as DPM? Of course not
My brother recently retired from the Civil Service in Whitehall and had a long and successful career working with politicians of both Tory and Labour governments. His only real conflict of recent times was with a junior Minister of the current government. The Minister wanted to bung a lucrative contract to a friend without tender, and my brother ensured that it did go out to open tender.
The two Ministers he most respected were John Major and Jeremy Hunt, both of whom actually listened to the advice given and were kind to their staff. John Major would often lunch in the canteen with the Junior office staff and Secretaries, a genuine and modest bloke.
Dominic Raab needlessly delayed a decision on evacuations from Afghanistan as he complained about the formatting of an email, the whistleblower claims.
Dominic Raab 'delayed Kabul rescue over email formatting' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10282069/Dominic-Raab-delayed-Kabul-rescue-email-formatting-whistleblower-claims.html
A couple of other things to remember about St Dominic the Martyr:
First, if his resignation was really because he was so incredibly honourable, we didn't need the dance of Thursday/Friday. He could have gone the moment he read the report. Conclusion: he didn't want to be honourable.
Second, Raab claimed to not have been told of the effects of his behaviour, when the evidence is that he was;
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-21/dominic-raab-bullying-report-the-key-findings
That ought to be a career breaker in itself.
Why the United States keeps getting richer – with Britain lagging ever further behind
Britons will soon be “richer than Americans” read a BBC headline in January 2008.
Forecasters were predicting that for the first time in more than a century, GDP per head in the UK would surpass that of the US.
...[snip]...
Yet by 2021, GDP per head across the pond had increased by 15pc, while Britons were only 3pc better off than in 2008.
...[snip]...
While the US economy was 5pc larger in the final three months of last year than before Covid, the UK remained 0.6pc poorer.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/23/us-richer-than-uk-finance-inflation-taxes/ (£££)
The Telegraph does not quite say Britain's growth under Labour was snuffed out by Conservative governments but it does point to high tax rates under the blue team, contrasted with low tax rates and state intervention in America.
More fundamentally, our economic growth during the Brown years was driven by financial services more than anything else. When the GFC showed that a lot of that money and profits were illusory at best our growth suffered disproportionately to every other mature economy. The advantage that the US and several others have over us is that they didn't stop investing in making stuff. We should try it.
The Sunday Mail can reveal more of the items in a police investigation into more than £600,000 of missing SNP donations.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/snp-fraud-investigations-looks-items-29783779
But it is still very well done and most enjoyable.
1) We were sold the story of Gordon Brown++ level throwing things and actually physical violence.
2) The reality was desk thumping and calling out people in front of others (pubic humiliation). Also threatening people with the sack. This is considered bullying in business.
3) from 2) he was toast.
4) the sacking/resignation followed the old style pattern of “time to consider your position”
5) this sunrises people because it is a while since this pattern hasn't been used in a while
6) Raab hasn’t accepted 2)
7) this comes back to something I have commented on in the past - no training or career development for politicians. So you get people who have no idea how to manage running departments
8) Conspiracy? It’s back to definitions. There was undoubtedly an upwelling of complaints. A movement if you like. But this was created by his behaviour.
9) Civil Service obstructionism. This is a thing. Read the memoirs of ministers from all sides going back as far as you like. Yes Minister was based on truth - exaggerated, but truth.
This takes the form of opposing “bad policies”. The problem is what is a bad policy. For example, a senior civil servant of my acquaintance told me, proudly that he had blocked incompetent process in an entire department for some years. The process - Agile Project Management. By imposing waterfall, he had probably doomed most of the IT projects in his department.
Surely Govt knows it all ,the ludicrous pension holidays and so on and so forth.....
Because after all, if ministers were judged on their achievements in office, which one of the current cabinet would have a job?
Possibly Sunak, Hunt (arguable) and then I'm starting to struggle. Braverman has failed at everything she's done. Cleverly is meh. Barclay is being walloped by the NHS. Gove isn't without impacts to his name but his most significant impact was in education and his reforms are unfolding as more and more disastrous pretty much by the month.
I didn't like Brown and his management style makes Raab look like a choirboy, but you could point to actual things he had done that in the short term at least led to improvements. With this lot, that's really hard work.
I see they're still cheating.
Read the report - by an employment expert commissioned by the PM, not the civil service.
Tolley bent over backwards to be fair to Raab, and it's nonetheless pretty evident what he made of his behaviour.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/essex-man-jailed-over-236-152622346.html
Five years for running Bet365 accounts in other people's names seems a bit stiff.
I'm just surprised at his naïveté in assuming they would pay out often enough for that to be worth it.
Yes you will probably be banging your head against a brick wall, but the campaign I am involved in (which is more specific) has managed to get 2 debates in parliament, 2 bills, NAO report and PAC report in progress, so after 11 years of campaigning I am hopeful of success. However even if successful I will continue supporting the FAS and PPF campaigns for the pre 97 pension contribution scandal you are hit by.
People are going to jail, at the cost of £40k per year, for these cottage industry frauds. Similarly things like stamp washing. It is completely the wrong solution.
That Raab has similar stories from every department he's been in seems to be common knowledge, but that again is something completely outside of the report's purview, which is why it wasn't mentioned.
Ambassador Wyler is of course a lib fantasy, the looks of a Gabbard/Haley yet with a fierce moral intelligence. Could never happen..
Tories consider controversial plan to politicise civil service after Raab scandal
No 10 adviser urges political appointments in a radical plan following crisis over bullying
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/22/tories-consider-controversial-plan-to-politicise-civil-service-after-raab-scandal
I mean, there's optimism that the government's ratings will come good, and then there's simple denial of the situation.
And while the SNP financial scandals continue, to which he can credibly argue he is not linked, the other more real and present threat that Yousaf has to overcome is that he has helped create a back bench of all the talents.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,who-would-have-believed-how-toxic-nicola-sturgeons-legacy-could-become
On another subject of bullies in government, I see Spielman is going to give an interview on Kuennsberg today to try and justify the current disaster at OFSTED. I don't propose to watch it as it would annoy me to watch her spouting her usual dishonest drivel, but if any public spirited person not so deeply invested in the train crash that is our current education system would like to, her ignorance might be good for a few laughs.
Last year they won one match. Both innings Harry Brook was very lucky not to be given out early on, one caught behind, one lbw.
Discussions as to whether it is bigger than Raab or Spielman may be left below the line.
See you later.
Point being is that there is no formal procedure for civil servants to raise such complaints. To bring them forward would have required waiving anonymity, which outside of a formal procedure presents obvious risks for a complainant.
If anything productive comes out of the mess, then it would be a better means of resolving such clashes.
Such a system could be confidential - and might possibly allow ministers to correct their management deficiencies outside of the public gaze.
It is light, fluffy - and diverting
Tho Winfield House seems to have developed gardens the size of Versailles